Smith v Baker (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB) (20 October 2020)

Smith v Baker (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB) (20 October 2020)

The defence and counterclaim are defective and do not comply with the rules, but the defects are not so serious as to warrant strike out or summary judgment at this stage. The counterclaim is not an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle, nor is it res judicata except for specific paragraphs which are struck out. Both parties are required to amend their pleadings to comply with the rules, with the warning that further significant breaches may result in strike out.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2776
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Defendant: Esther Ruth Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Harassment / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed except for specific paragraphs struck out; parties required to amend pleadings.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Henderson V Henderson Principle, Serious Harm Test, Practice Direction 53 B, Litigants in Person
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Abuse of Process Res Judicata +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Esther Ruth Baker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Harassment / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and counterclaim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for non-compliance with pleading rules
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the claim or counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim is barred by res judicata or the Henderson v Henderson principle

Ratio Decidendi

The defence and counterclaim are defective and do not comply with the rules, but the defects are not so serious as to warrant strike out or summary judgment at this stage. The counterclaim is not an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle, nor is it res judicata except for specific paragraphs which are struck out. Both parties are required to amend their pleadings to comply with the rules, with the warning that further significant breaches may result in strike out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed except for specific paragraphs struck out; parties required to amend pleadings.

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 of the defence and paragraphs 41, 52(vii), 64 and 65 of the counterclaim are struck out.
  • Defendant required to amend defence and counterclaim to comply with rules.